Adopt ruff formatter instead of black

[Luca-Blight]

Change Summary

[".github/workflows/ci.yml","Makefile", "pyproject.toml", "tests/requirements-linting.txt"]

Related issue number

closes #1048

Checklist

• Unit tests for the changes exist
• Documentation reflects the changes where applicable
• Pydantic tests pass with this pydantic-core (except for expected changes)
• My PR is ready to review, please add a comment including the phrase "please review" to assign reviewers

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1051 (558fdf8) into main (cb47b96) will decrease coverage by 3.67%.
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1051      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   93.26%   89.59%   -3.67%     
==========================================
  Files         104      106       +2     
  Lines       15814    16796     +982     
  Branches       35       35              
==========================================
+ Hits        14749    15049     +300     
- Misses       1058     1740     +682     
  Partials        7        7              

see 8 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update cb47b96...558fdf8. Read the comment docs.

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #1051 will improve performances by 14.35%

_{Comparing Luca-Blight:main (558fdf8) with main (cb47b96)}

Summary

⚡ 2 improvements
✅ 138 untouched benchmarks

Benchmarks breakdown

	Benchmark	main	Luca-Blight:main	Change
⚡	test_validate_literal[python-few_mixed]	32.3 µs	28.4 µs	+13.82%
⚡	test_validate_literal[json-few_mixed]	35.3 µs	30.9 µs	+14.35%

[sydney-runkle]

@Luca-Blight,

Looks good overall - could you run locally to make sure all is working as expected? 👍 Thanks for the help!

Also, the test that's failing isn't related to your work, so don't worry about that.

[sydney-runkle]

I think we'll want to do something like we did with pydantic here:

https://github.com/pydantic/pydantic/blob/9868b456e4352558aa01217a6688b30554c6f290/Makefile#L26-L34

With a ruff --fix and ruff format call in the format step and ruff and ruff format check in the lint step 👍

[samuelcolvin]

Correct, lint should change anything.

Surely ruff format should imply ruff --fix?

[sydney-runkle]

I think we should use both based on this: https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/formatter/#conflicting-lint-rules

[Luca-Blight]

@sydney-runkle

My thinking is there was some redundancy in the last PR.
As an example, a linter and formatter command under the linting step:

.PHONY: lint  ## Lint python source files
lint: .pdm
	pdm run ruff $(sources)
	pdm run ruff format --check $(sources)

Nonetheless happy to make the modifications per your recommendation.

[sydney-runkle]

Yeah, I think we're really using lint like a check step and the format step like a fix step. I'm making some changes to pytest-examples right now that should iron out the details of which things we want to use where.

I'll get back to you on Monday with an answer about which we want to use here 👍

[sydney-runkle]

Let's stick with the same pattern we're using in pydantic for now 👍

[Luca-Blight]

Done, let me know if anything else.

[davidhewitt]

Looks great to me, thanks!

Changes resolved